A Johannesburg man caring for a child from a troubled background is asking the high court for full parental responsibilities and for the biological mother to relinquish her rights.
With the future of a five-year-old girl at stake, judge Stuart Wilson said he needed more information before adjudicating on the outcome of the case.
He has appointed lawyers Irene de Vos and Khanya Dambuza to act as curatrices to advise him. They will investigate and compile a report on the child’s best interests by August 28.
The case was brought by GG vs EYC. Their names cannot be made public to protect the child.
S was born in prison to an incarcerated mother in November 2020. She has been living with GG and his wife for three years, along with their two children, aged 19 and 12.
GG’s founding affidavit asserted her mother’s “criminal record renders her wholly unfit and incapable of providing a safe, stable, and nurturing environment for the child”.
I do not know where and how these interactions took place. I have no information about EYC’s current status or fitness to take on a role in S’s life
— Judge Stuart Wilson
The court was told S has had “brief interactions” with her biological mother, during which EYC has been introduced as one of GG’s friends.
“I do not know where and how these interactions took place. I have no information about EYC’s current status or fitness to take on a role in S’s life,” Wilson said.
GG’s legal team sketched the background.
Shortly after S was born, she was placed in the care of EYC’s sister, KC. At the time, KC was in a relationship with GG’s nephew, SV. The couple cared for S together, but later separated. KC did not believe she was financially able to care for S, so SV agreed to take S into his care. SV had a child of his own. The papers suggest SV, that child and S thereafter all lived together in a one-room apartment.
A short while later, GG invited SV and the two children to come and live with GG and his family at their home in a residential suburb in the southern part of Johannesburg.
That arrangement endured for six months, after which SV was offered a job in Jeffreys Bay. For reasons not explained on the papers, SV decided he would only take his own child to Jeffreys Bay when he relocated there to take up his new job. He left S in GG’s care.
By that time KC was apparently back on the scene, and, for a very short timed, S lived with KC in Pretoria. KC again decided she could no longer care for S. She was living with her partner at a motel at the time, and felt this was not a suitable environment for S, who was then two years old. KC placed S back in GG’s care, apparently with plastic bags containing S’s clothes and other possessions.
Since that time, S has lived with GG and his family.
In his application under section 28 of the Children’s Act asking the court to terminate EYC’s parental rights and responsibilities, and to vest those rights and responsibilities in GG himself, he relies on his role as S’s de facto guardian.
He presented an affidavit dated February 2024, in which EYC purports to vest what she calls “primary guardianship” in GG and his wife.
I have no idea what EYC’s true attitude to the application is. As she is presently incarcerated, she faces obvious barriers of access to legal representation, especially in a civil case
— Judge Stuart Wilson
Wilson said the address given in that affidavit suggests EYC was not incarcerated at the time she made it.
“But this application was served personally on her at a Pretoria prison. I infer from this that, if EYC was released from prison at any point after she gave birth to S, she is now incarcerated again. I have no information about why or for how long that incarceration will continue.”
The judge said he has no reason to doubt GG’s motives or his suitability as a parent. “However, I plainly lack the information necessary to make an informed decision on whether he should assume full parental rights and responsibilities for S.
“I have no idea what EYC’s true attitude to the application is. As she is presently incarcerated, she faces obvious barriers of access to legal representation, especially in a civil case.
“Moreover, I have no independent source of information about S’s well-being and progress, or about GG’s suitability as a parent.
“On the face of things, GG has acted with the utmost integrity and compassion. But I would be failing in my duty if, in a case like this, I were to make an order with such far-reaching consequences for S merely on GG’s say-so. Accordingly, an independent assessment of the situation is required.
”It seems to me the only other realistic alternative is the appointment of a curator ad litem to make submissions on behalf of S herself about where her best interests lie. The curators will have to interview GG and EYC. They may also have to source an independent expert assessment of S’s well-being and current living arrangements."
Pending the report from the two lawyers appointed by Wilson, he said the child should remain where she is, under GG’s care.
The application was postponed sine die (meaning adjourned indefinitely). Until resolved, no one may remove S from GG’s care without Wilson’s permission.
TimesLIVE
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.